Never ending torture in hell

  • Thread starter Thread starter CLearthinking04
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
St. Faustina was canonized by the Catholic Church while St. John Paul II (who you quoted earlier) was Pope. šŸ™‚
So, St Faustina’s writings after being canonized as a saint has more weight than a Pope? But a Pope actually has to approve the canonization. And what if a later saint says something that conflicts with scripture? What takes precedence?
 
Among hard-core fundamentalists, preaching on Hell is considered the mark of brave, fearless preaching. I’ve heard a few in my time among them.
They have one purpose and one purpose only:
To scare the bejeebees out of the ā€œunsavedā€ so they come forward during the ā€˜invitation’ to pray the ā€˜sinner’s prayer’.
Nothing like fearing an eternity of endless torture to add to the notches in your Bible.
:cool:
 
Among hard-core fundamentalists, preaching on Hell is considered the mark of brave, fearless preaching. I’ve heard a few in my time among them.
They have one purpose and one purpose only:
To scare the bejeebees out of the ā€œunsavedā€ so they come forward during the ā€˜invitation’ to pray the ā€˜sinner’s prayer’.
Nothing like fearing an eternity of endless torture to add to the notches in your Bible.
:cool:
Hell is scary. You don’t think people should be afraid of going there? The Catholic Church warned of Hell for years! If your criteria for joining a Religion is how adamant the Church was about the horrors of Hell, then perhaps you wouldn’t have been Catholic in centuries past?
 
Why does it matter if the story is a parable or is factually ā€œtrueā€. The story is told by Truth himself.
Yes but how did Jesus communicate this truth?
Code:
"All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitudes IN PARABLES and without a parable spoke he not unto them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ā€˜I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.’"

    Matthew 13:34–35
The first thing to notice is the fact that Lazarus ate of the crumbs that fell from the Rich Man’s table. Now, are the crumbs literal or symbolic? If literal, then tell me how Lazarus would have had enough to eat? A few measly crumbs could hardly feed any grown man. Obviously, Christ meant that the man ate the scraps (intended for dogs or other animals). However, the literalists would demand real crumbs so they can get the Rich Man into a real burning hell!

Then it says that Lazarus died and was carried by the angels into the bosom of Abraham. Where was Abraham’s bosom? Some people say it signifies the heavenly abode, heaven. In fact, the bosom of Abraham actually means the breast part of his body. Can they get Lazarus and ten million other redeemed Christians in that one bosom of Abraham? There would not be any room to breathe, let alone stretch ones arms. All people, however, rightly recognize that Christ is here giving a symbol. True! That is just the point that we wish to make! If one part is figurative, all can be!

We then find that Abraham is able to carry on a conversation with the Rich Man and that Lazarus could be seen with Abraham, though the text says that Abraham was ā€œafar off.ā€ How were they able to talk with one another? If Abraham and Lazarus were in heaven (as many preachers claim today), it shows that the redeemed would still be in constant contact with the rebellious sinners in hell and that the redeemed would be seeing their tortured and agonized faces as they writhed in unrelenting pain. Indeed, they are close enough to be in conversation with them! Can you imagine the joy and happiness the saints would have while viewing the agony of all the wicked in hell for all eternity? But if this story of Christ were to be taken literally, that would be the outcome. What glory would it be to see your unredeemed father, your unconverted mother, sister, brother, son, daughter, wife or husband having to experience the rigors of an eternally burning hell without any relief ever in sight, while you bask in the sunshine and happiness of Abraham’s bosom? And remember Abraham was close enough to carry on a conversation with the Rich Man. And the Rich Man was close enough to Lazarus to recognize him.

Another thing that is highly irregular of our experience is the fact that the Rich Man was able to speak at all. Would he not more likely be screaming his head off at the terrible excruciating pain that he was being subjected to? Again, if the account is literal, we find a most impossible situation in the story. Even more than that, what does the Rich Man seek from Lazarus? It is not to drag him out of the fire, but simply to take a drop of cold water and put on his tongue. Why, the Rich Man ought to know that such a thing would not relieve his pain in the slightest! How can a drop of physical water give benefit to a spirit being (as the Rich Man would be)? The water, if literal, would turn into steam before it could do any good. And why did not the man ask Abraham to bring the drop of water to his tongue to cool it? Abraham was far closer to the Rich Man, or at least it looks this way because there was no conversation with Lazarus. What was so special about Lazarus that his drop of water would cool his tongue, but Abraham was not asked for any help?

The point is, the whole scene (though instructive and significant in what our Lord was trying to teach) is impossible to explain sensibly if Christ was teaching fact. However, make it a parable (as it truly is, remembering that Christ would not teach without a parable), then the message becomes beautiful and understandable. Again, everyone knows Paul did not mean literal ā€œcoals of fire on one’s headā€ in Romans 12:20.
 
Hell is scary. You don’t think people should be afraid of going there? The Catholic Church warned of Hell for years! If your criteria for joining a Religion is how adamant the Church was about the horrors of Hell, then perhaps you wouldn’t have been Catholic in centuries past?
Of course people should be afraid of going to Hell, the problem is Ron, at least among the hard-core fundies, they never emphasized the other side of the coin. The God of mercy and love. In many respects, their idea of Hell fed a sort of ā€˜justice’ in their minds in regard to people they did not like.
I once saw a preacher, almost giddy with excitement, over the suggestion that Mother Theresa was burning in Hell. You can’t tell me there is something deeply wrong with that kind of emphasis.
As the Protestant CS Lewis once said: Hell is about the other guy, it’s about you and me.
The Catholic Church still warns of Hell. We just don’t wear it like a badge.
 
Of course people should be afraid of going to Hell, the problem is Ron, at least among the hard-core fundies, they never emphasized the other side of the coin. The God of mercy and love. In many respects, their idea of Hell fed a sort of ā€˜justice’ in their minds in regard to people they did not like.
I once saw a preacher, almost giddy with excitement, over the suggestion that Mother Theresa was burning in Hell. You can’t tell me there is something deeply wrong with that kind of emphasis.
As the Protestant CS Lewis once said: Hell is about the other guy, it’s about you and me.
The Catholic Church still warns of Hell. We just don’t wear it like a badge.
Yeah, those people are dumb.

I was told I’m going to Hell by a street preacher just because I didn’t receive his pamphlet as I was walking by. ā€œEnjoy your time in Hell!ā€ I was so mad.
 
šŸ‘

That sounds like an accurate description of what’s going on.
None, because it hasn’t.

The Church is just expressing the reality of hell in a more profound way. First and foremost it is not a punishment by a vengeful God. Hell is chosen by those who go there and God loved everyone of them. Christ died for them. Flames, and the like, are a human expression of a deeper suffering. As others have said, imagine complete and utter separation from God for eternity.

Purgatory often suffers from the same images of fire and punishment. Our suffering in purgatory is the realization of just how much we have offended God through our sins. In order to convey the degree of this suffering images such as burning in flames are used.

So I don’t think the position of the Church has changed, just the way it chooses to express it, which, hopefully, brings us closer to the truth.
 
While the possibility of hell is very real for everyone, that possibility is not the Gospel that we proclaim. The possibility of hell is not the good news, the possibility of heaven is the good news.

Anxiety and inordinate fear are enemies of the spiritual life and do not bear good fruit. We should proclaim the gospel in such a way as to instill trust and confidence (which is not the same thing as presumption).
Proclaiming that God will see to it that people who have fallen short of salvation will be tortured for ever and ever in fire is not proclaiming the good news. I am saddened and confused that many of my fellow Catholics have such hardened hearts that to think our great creator God who said to love our enemies and do good to those who persecute you could do such an unjust thing. There is lots of scriptural support for other alternatives. I encounter this so much of this cruel hatred to the fallen in other believers that my faith is weakened by it.

I will need to pray for strength and am beginning to regret starting this thread.
 
Catholic beliefs (from what I’ve learned from this forum) are much different than Evangelical beliefs in terms of justification and sanctification. We believe that it would be better to cut off our arm that causes us to sin than to have the arm causing us to sin. However, it starts with an arm or an eye, but how much must one cut out before their very own evil heart?

We also believe that none of us has the Faith and perfection as Jesus, but we don’t deny that He was serious. God would prefer us to enter Heaven armless than with sin. Likewise Jesus calls us to give away everything and follow Him; again we’re not doing this because we recognize we can never attain Salvation by our own works.

And finally, odd that you were only interested in what I quoted from Mark.
Thanks for explaining the Evangelicals’ take on this.

I quoted your Mk reference because you started your post with** ā€˜Evangelicals simply go by what the Bible says, and that’s it’.** I know you would not take Mk literally but you did with Rev (hell as lake of fire and sulphur).

Anyway it was a sincere question from me, in that I just wanted to hear your explanation. šŸ˜‰

As already mentioned in this thread, hell as literal lake of fire and sulfur, and where those who were cast there suffer torment, would certainly contradict God’s attribute as a loving God. Thus many of us take the Revelation verses as metaphor, more so Revelation being an apocalyptic book.

Peace.

Reuben
 
Yeah, those people are dumb.

I was told I’m going to Hell by a street preacher just because I didn’t receive his pamphlet as I was walking by. ā€œEnjoy your time in Hell!ā€ I was so mad.
We have one in our little hamlet. He and his ā€˜church’ (one other dude) stand on the main road with big signs telling everyone passing by they are going to Hell.
:cool:
 
Eternal separation from God would be the greatest form of torture and hell for me.
Agreed, but do we follow God because we are afraid of hell of because we tasted the goodness of Christ and naturally want to give up all and follow Him?
 
Thanks for explaining the Evangelicals’ take on this.

I quoted your Mk reference because you started your post with** ā€˜Evangelicals simply go by what the Bible says, and that’s it’.** I know you would not take Mk literally but you did with Rev (hell as lake of fire and sulphur).

Anyway it was a sincere question from me, in that I just wanted to hear your explanation. šŸ˜‰

As already mentioned in this thread, hell as literal lake of fire and sulfur, and where those who were cast there suffer torment, would certainly contradict God’s attribute as a loving God. Thus many of us take the Revelation verses as metaphor, Revelation being an apocalyptic book notwithstanding.

Peace.

Reuben
But Catholics didn’t believe as you do for centuries? What’s next; not believing communion is the true flesh and blood of Christ literally? šŸ˜‰ šŸ˜‰
 
But Catholics didn’t believe as you do for centuries? What’s next; not believing communion is the true flesh and blood of Christ literally? šŸ˜‰ šŸ˜‰
They did. I think it was explained here in various posts in this thread. šŸ™‚

Edit:
I would read the Bible in context, as overview and the general message that it is trying to give. There can be metaphors or should be read literally. When a verse contradicts the greater message of the Bible, then surely it cannot be literal.

And as explained many times, the Communion being true Body and Blood of the Lord is literal - He explained this teaching earlier (Jn 6) and many could not understand, he did not recant nor clarified. Much later, during the Passover meal, he mentioned this again, this time with those who remained by saying, ā€œThisā€ as he held the bread, ā€œis my bodyā€. The Bible says so too. We have different interpretation on that but I do not think the Catholic Church will change that belief, not then and certainly not now or in the future.
 
None, because it hasn’t.

The Church is just expressing the reality of hell in a more profound way. First and foremost it is not a punishment by a vengeful God. Hell is chosen by those who go there and God loved everyone of them. Christ died for them. Flames, and the like, are a human expression of a deeper suffering. As others have said, imagine complete and utter separation from God for eternity.

Purgatory often suffers from the same images of fire and punishment. Our suffering in purgatory is the realization of just how much we have offended God through our sins. In order to convey the degree of this suffering images such as burning in flames are used.

So I don’t think the position of the Church has changed, just the way it chooses to express it, which, hopefully, brings us closer to the truth.
Well said!! THank You
 
Evangelicals simply go by what the Bible says, and that’s it. We don’t know exactly what Hell is like, and what the fire represents but can you really criticize Christians for just accepting what the Bible teaches?

Rev 20:10 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever…14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.

15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Mark 9:43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. …47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell,

48 'where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched. ’

Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death. "
What I see in the scriptures that you cited is death (or second final death/non-existence)
Fire consumes, eternal means finality or death is eternal. Can you also get any clearer that ā€œThis is the second deathā€? Not a never ending torture chamber.
 
Among hard-core fundamentalists, preaching on Hell is considered the mark of brave, fearless preaching. I’ve heard a few in my time among them.
They have one purpose and one purpose only:
To scare the bejeebees out of the ā€œunsavedā€ so they come forward during the ā€˜invitation’ to pray the ā€˜sinner’s prayer’.
Nothing like fearing an eternity of endless torture to add to the notches in your Bible.
:cool:
This is the interpretative problem I am having. Do we follow Jesus because we love Jesus or follow Jesus because we fear hell? It seems an insincere motive and why would professing Christians want to gain converts that are insincere. I suppose a case can be made for using fear as an entry point into the faith because God can meet anyone where they are in life and then as they grow in the faith see a more ethical side of God.
 
What I see in the scriptures that you cited is death (or second final death/non-existence)
Fire consumes, eternal means finality or death is eternal. Can you also get any clearer that ā€œThis is the second deathā€? Not a never ending torture chamber.
So then what part of ā€œand they will be tormented day and night forever and everā€ do you agree/disagree/reinterpret?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top